Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it returns a share link plus private organizer links, and it warns to keep personalToken and manageUrl private. The consent requirement is also important because this is a creating action. It could add more about side-effect scope, but it already goes beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences carry the purpose, output behavior, privacy instructions, and the one-request rule. Every clause earns its place, and critical guidance is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 19-parameter creator with no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned and what safety behavior is expected. Optional settings are left to the input schema, which is acceptable, though a bit more detail about the created object's lifecycle would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents many parameters, and the description adds only a little semantic value, such as 'match means 4 players' and 'tournament means americano.' With 68% schema coverage, some parameters like note, title, venueMapUrl, and levelMax remain undocumented in both the schema and description, so the description does not fully compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the two resource types: a padel match (4 players) or an americano tournament. It also states the return artifact, clearly distinguishing this from sibling read/join tools like get_match and join_match.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides useful guardrails ('Ask before creating; one request, one match') and clarifies the creation context. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives like join_match or generate_schedule, so the agent must largely infer when to choose this over siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.